Bombay High Court
Pandurang S/O Sonaji Katkhede vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 September, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Nitin B. Suryawanshi
{1}
crwp132720.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1327 OF 2020
Pandurang s/o Sonaji Katkhede,
age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Gomalwada, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Home Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Superintendent of Police,
Beed, Tq. & District Beed.
03 The Police Inspector,
Shirur (Kasar) Police Station,
District Beed.
04 Parmeshwar Waman Bankar,
age: major, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Gomalwada, Tq. Shirur
(Kasar), District Beed.
05 Madhukar s/o Waman Bankar,
age: major, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Gomalwada, Tq. Shirur
(Kasar), District Beed. Respondents
Mr. A. L. Kanade, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP, for Respondents No.1 to 3.
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2021 14:45:20 :::
{2}
crwp132720.odt
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.
DATE : 02nd September, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2. This petition seeks direction to Respondents No.1 to 3
to carry out fresh investigation in respect of Cr.No.151/2020,
registered with Shirur (Kasar) Police Station, Tq. Shirur Kasar,
District Beed, for the offence punishable under Sections 304A of
the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act.
3. The petitioner's son Ravindra was found dead in the
field G.No. 127 of Gomalwada shivar in the night between
31.07.2020 and 01.08.2020 due to electric shock. Dhondiba
Pankhade, the owner of the said land, had erected GI wire fencing
to prevent the wild animals from entering and damaging the crop.
Electric current was supplied to the GI wire fencing. Ravindra
received shock due to the electric current and expired on the spot.
{3}
crwp132720.odt
At the instance of Pravin Kacharu Gavai, relative of the deceased,
A.D. No.26 of 2020 was registered and an inquiry was conducted.
The First Information Report at CR. No.0151 of 2020 was lodged by
Police Naik Hanumant Salunke on 27.08.2020 with Shirur (Kasar)
Police Station, District Beed, against the owner of the field, namely
Dhondiba Pankhade, for offence punishable under Sections 304A
of the Indian Penal Code and 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. In
the spot panchanama, the skin of the deceased's hands was found
attached to the wire fencing at two places. The burn marks, due to
electric current, were noticed on both the hands of the deceased.
On completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed
and the case is numbered as RCC No.60 of 2020.
4. The petitioner contends that Ravindra was murdered
by Respondents No.4 and 5. According to the petitioner, the
investigation was carried out in such a manner so as to save the
real culprits - Respondents No.4 and 5. Ravindra was called in the
fateful night by Respondents No.4 and 5 and they committed his
murder and put up a show that he died due to electric shock. The
Investigating Officer pressurised the witnesses and recorded their
statements in such a manner to favour the Respondents No. 4 & 5.
According to the petitioner, Prashant Kacharu Gavai, who had
{4}
crwp132720.odt
lodged the A.D., informed the petitioner that at about 11.00 p.m. in
the fateful night, Respondents No.4 and 5 came in the temple
where Ravindra and Prashant were sleeping and they took away
Ravindra and in the morning, dead body of Ravindra was found.
Prashant was pressurised by the police authorities while recording
his statement. According to the petitioner, there are other
witnesses who had previously seen Respondents No.4 and 5
beating Ravindra.
5. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by
the petitioner. The petitioner had failed to substantiate his
contentions by placing any material on record. The position and
condition of the dead body and the charred skin found attached to
the wire, recorded in the spot panchanama, clearly indicate that
Ravindra died due to electric shock in the fateful night. In the
statement before the police, Prashant had stated that after leaving
Ravindra in the temple at the fateful night, he went away. On
going through the material collected during the course of
investigation, we find that proper investigation is conducted and
charge sheet is filed. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that
allegations of the petitioner that Ravindra was murdered appear to
be imaginary and there is no basis for the same.
{5}
crwp132720.odt
6. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition
and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy
available in law. In that case, the above observations shall not
influence the trial Court.
(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
